tv [untitled] December 4, 2010 12:30am-1:00am PST
approved in the selection to operate behind in golden gate park. the terms of the permit that has been negotiated are the following. five years. they will operate seven days a week between the hours of 10:30 a.m. at 6:00 p.m.. at 10:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. during the spring and summer hours. the permitee is required to maintain the space surrounding their concession. the financial projections are the following a period their minimum annual guarantee is $12,000 a year. the rent is 11% of sales.
the staff informed the party of our intention and the approval to put them behind. it has received support from staff, the selection panel, the office of economic workforce development, and the chamber of commerce. i'm done, sorry. >president buell: i have a question before we go to public comment. for that whole area, is there a process in place or is it anticipated that there will be a process to look at a master plan for that area since we are adding uses? >> this has come out a number of
different times. it calls for a plaza designe behind the bandshell. it is a project that we are very interested in. it is among our fund-raising goals. it is a large, capital project. we have not started a public communication in the engagement process. other than that which took place during the master planning process. the master plan has a very high level concept for what the area behind the band shell would be. we're looking forward to partnering in particular with the preservation alliance and others that have expressed a similar interested in the project. commissioner lee: my question
was along the same lines. in the last few months, we approved a number of vendors. with regard to the maintenance part of the yard, i know the maintenance uses the facility pretty heavily. i just want to make sure that as we are proving these, we're not interfering with their work. what plans do you have of relocating that maintenance facility so that it is not interfering with use? >> and this is replacing an existing cart, so we are not adding any infrastructure. we're working closely to make sure that they can continue operations unimpeded by the
concessions behind the band shell. >> there will not be a need to relocate the maintenance use? >> the offices back there behind the band shell. i have spoken with others on several occasions. we're not there yet. we want to move them because consistent with the master plan is a better use for the space. it is a little bit of a hodge podge of functions, but this is a big project. it is definitely on our list and something we are interested in. we need to move forward with a community dialogue to figure out where to go from here. and think about where the source of funding is going to come from.
>> i noticed we have a contract , and is there any particular reason why you want to give them a five-year contract versus a one-year contract with an extension? in light of the potential construction, it might not be five years. >> that is something that we can take into consideration. we were to be insensitive to the interested of the community. we felt more confident by giving them a longer lease. i would be happy to take your comments into consideration in light of the fact that we would like to do some long-range planning. >> is there any public comment on this item?
please come forward. >> thank you very much. yes, we need a plan for this area. i appreciate your words, and i think shorter will be a good idea. there should be some flexibility. there was an article saying there were no objections, we have registered objections. the music concourse is a city landmark. the introduction of these elements must receive a certificate of appropriateness. missing from your staff report is the fact that the historic preservation commission has expressed concern, and to come
and talk to them about these parts. i also appreciate you talking about the master plan. it was created after a long process in 1998, and as far as we are concerned, it goes to the head of the line in front of other projects that have been started since then. we would like to see this project of the. -- move up. president buell: thank you. >> among the many statistics cited was not the size of this card. i would like sums specifics. -- soem me specifics. >> public comment is closed. president buell: can we get an
answer? >> it is a truck, 10 by 24 feet. president buell: it has been moved and seconded. any other comments? all those in favor? it is unanimous. >> item #7, approval of a permit of soft serve. golden gate park and marina green. >> before i continue, i would like to recognize the efforts of my colleagues on working for both leases. in july, we approved an rfp to
increase the amenities and provide revenue for the department. they approved the selection of twirl n' dip. the commission approved the selection to operate at the scott street entrance from 3:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. a one-year permit with a one- year extension. as i noted, it will be at golden gate park right off of martin luther king drive 11:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m.. the department will require approval for equipment, menu, and prices.
they are required to clean up and maintain the space within 100 feet of the concession as well as offer garbage, recycling, and compost to customers. we also asked them not to serve food that is particularly appealing to the wildlife and to instruct customers not to feed wildlife as well as those cited to instructing customers not to do so. the financial projections are the following. the greater of the minimum guarantee of $12,000 or a percentage rent that is 15% of gross sales. the department staff estimates $22,400 per year and i should know that the revenue generated goes back into the marine of fund -- marina green fund.
i won't go through the list, but it was quite extensive. we considered the placement of golden gate park. we have received support for this proposal, unanimous support from the selection panel. the office of economic and work- force development, the chamber of commerce, and we received support from many community members. commissioner harrison: i notice that a lot of these that we are leasing with have promised to keep the place clean and picked up. do we have anyone that goes back and checked on these things to make sure they are complying? >> we have the community that i am pretty sure will let us know if the area is not left clean.
we also do quarterly power -- park evaluations. as a department, we like to implement a system where they do periodic checks. president buell: thank you. >> any public comment on this item? >> i am with several organizations, but i have been listening here and i see this menu. it looks like disneyland to me. are we turning our part in disneyland?
-- park into disneyland? parks should not be revenue generators. it is for people to enjoy. i wish you would consider that. thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item? public comment is closed. president buell: commissioners? it has been moved and seconded. all in favor? it's unanimous. thank you. >> we are on item number eight. >> i will do my best not to cough into the microphone and i
will try to be brief. since may of 2010 approved the implementation plan for the community operation fund, to facilitate in to manage the distribution of the applications for the pilot round of the community opportunity fund, when they make recommendations of project awards for the community opportunity fund. as far as outreach strategy is concerned, our goal was to go as broadly and deeply in the neighborhoods as we could. we held many meetings across the city. different kinds of day at different times of the week to accommodate as many people as possible. i also met individually with potential applicants that for not available to make it to those meetings. every potential applicant was accommodated. as a result of those meetings,
we had 75 attendees, 25% -- just over 20% of them applied. we had 16 applications to request 1.5 $6 million. many districts were represented, with district 11 having the most applications. aheaof the applications were vey high quality. that is a credit to the applicants into our partners. of the 60 applications, her two of them were considered a menu projects. i will be presenting again in february for how to revise the process. but i think the fact that there
were so many people speak to the challenges of the menu system. they were relatively small and simple projects. they were actually disqualified from the process. one thing that we are discussing and working with members of the task force is to reconsider a small, medium, large purses a large pot. as for the project selection process itself, i have included the selection committee package that was distributed to the members of the committee as was the members. each member of the committee reviewed the criteria and reported to each other. we took those scores and review each application as a group. the committee came to an agreement about which project
best fits the criteria in the majority vote to approve projects. i did not vote on recommendations, and i say that the committee -- several applicants have had questions about the criteria and the wording. the committee has made recommendations to expand the program beyond $500,000 for the first round. we are recommending adding approximately 30%. we wanted to strike a balance and not over fund given it is a pilot round, but there is no reason for good projects to have to reapply for another round and
create more. of the projects we have recommended for words, they represent the total commitment of $298,000. that is a 45% leveraged by the recreation and parks department. you have the drawings of the projects and the details of the projects. in the amount of $24,450, it includes improvements to the quality of the playground by supplementing the existing with ada improvements. improving asphalt pathways. the request for $25,000 includes safety improvements like directional cited in information kiosks. -- signage and directinformation
kiosks. they would provide a route from the right of way. the community garden is $234,764 and represents a phase one construction of the garden and improvements at the site including demolition. the natural area, to complement the existing boardwalk and provided benches and interpreted cited to explain the flora and fauna and the area -- in the area. the installation of several bike racks.
we anticipate some savings from that to provide the bike racks. finally, the last project is pioneer park. the project proposal addresses safety concerns including new fencing and lighting. since the committee has made its recommendations, all of them that were not funded or awarded, we provide all of them with feedback from the committee to facilitate them getting all of their answers and a very specific recommendations. i would also briefly like to recognize commissioner harrison and several of the selection committee members. president buell: thank you.
commissioner harrison: one of the things i wanted to do is come and -- commend jake. he met with every one of those people. he offered his time and expertise to do whatever is necessary to bring it forward. the results were impressive. on some of the applications, they were very well done and give us a good indication of what they wanted to do out there. i wanted to thank j. carroll of the work he has put an end of the work he is going to continue to do. again, thank you, jay. -- jake. president buell: i had a few comments from people that were not selected. is it your sense that the process can be improved in the next round and we have learned a lot?
>> i have pages of comments from both applicants whose projects were awarded and applicants whose projects were not awarded. as well as committee members. ed before rte. 2, applications will be released in march. i am currently compiling all of that data and i will be coming back with recommendations to improve round 2. commissioner lee: i just had a question on process. with regard to the leverage to match, are you finding the projects once the message is that? -- match is met? what is that process? >> the project cannot be made whole until the leverages have been reached. for the majority of these
projects, there are two pieces of leverage. the cash has been secured for these projects. if it indicates these are not secured, we cannot move forward until the money is in hand. some of the projects include volunteer hours. >> how are the funds coming in? >> it depends on the sponsor. sometimes the fiscal sponsor is simply an individual and will be receiving the funding directly. commissioner lee: and you will be coming back and showing us which ones match at the conclusion -- >> in order to award contracts, i will need to come back to you with a plan for how that is funded. that includes the opportunity
fund as well as the leverage. >> we have public comment. [reads names] >> my name is meredith thomas, i am the executive director of the parks council. i want to commend the department for reaching this point. this portion was something they advocated to have improved because not every park will be involved. we have a nearly $2 billion capital deficit. we can't get to every part. the opportunity fund is a chance for folks to step up and say that we have a project in mind
and we will make sure it happens, leveraging through storage shed and volunteerism. we believe it helps enhance the park as a whole. i was on the task force that developed the framework, and my past job was that a foundation. i can tell you that you are always going to learn things. you have seven very worthy projects that are going to make positive changes. i am also committed to helping the department improve the process for route to -- round two. if there is ever an opportunity, we are happy to help. i wanted to thank the department for their hard work had for the selection committee for taking it very seriously. we think it will result in some
great improvements. >> i am from the geneva a community garden. i wanted to say that our community is so excited about the project and we are delighted to be included in the first round of this funding. it has been some hopeful since we started working on this. -- so helpful since we started this. jake has been very helpful. marvin yee has been helpful with budgets, drawings, and really great support advise. and also, this is my third time
here to get approval, and we are excited about this going forward. >> linda? >> i am here representing the advisory members. i will be reporting back about what i feel is a very successful ground. it is the early stages, even prior to the submission of the documentation we are talking about. as far as a member of the committee, i would like to acknowledge jake. we took it very seriously. it was three times the ask.
having the knowledge that the tests put together a good, strong package. we were very cognizant of what the opportunity fund was asking for. some of the discussions included remembering what the community put this on the ballot for. and what about the taxpayer? we had a lot of conversations. it was almost like peeling layers of an onion. we would take it home, and speaking for myself, it would become my nightly reading. as you peel away the layers and you started putting them against the different areas that jake was guiding us, it was very clear which ones needed to be
brought up and which ones needed behalf graded lower. i think the list you have in front of you is a very strong less. -- list. [chime] president buell: thank you. >> mike. just to remind folks, we need everyone to take d.c., please. >> i served as the landscape architect. i just want to keep it brief and to mention that i feel the selection process was very fair. some projects that were not selected did receive higher scores, hub of a lot of those projects did not fulfill the selection criteria as was outlined.